Replacement AWACS

All those places are well within the Global Eye range considerations and even better than the E7 range...
On that basis, we wouldn’t be interested in it either.

Instead, I assume that Qatar wanted the additional C2 capacity offered by the E-7 within a coalition context.

...If the RAF buy E7, will they want a probe on it?
I very much doubt it due to the certification implications.

Regards,
MM
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
On that basis, we wouldn’t be interested in it either.

Instead, I assume that Qatar wanted the additional C2 capacity offered by the E-7 within a coalition context.



I very much doubt it due to the certification implications.

Regards,
MM

Would the UK look to develop the E7 as a C3int/C4 platform given is size?
 
Would the UK look to develop the E7 as a C3int/C4 platform given is size?
It depends what you mean by ‘C3Int/C4’.

However, the E-7 is already a very capable Command and Control/Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C2ISR) asset.

Regards,
MM
 
Command Control Communications (intelligence) or Command Control Communications and Compiting
I’m aware what the acronyms mean but we’re talking semantics; communications and computers are inherent in a C2 role and asset. Therefore, what capabilities are you talking about?

Will that also apply to fitting of a galley and loo with washing facilities?
All discussed earlier in the thread: the E-7 has a galley and toilet with sink.

Regards,
MM
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
I’m aware what the acronyms mean but we’re talking semantics; communications and computers are inherent in a C2 role and asset. Therefore, what capabilities are you talking about?



All discussed earlier in the thread: the E-7 has a galley and toilet with sink.

Regards,
MM
Does orwill the E7 have the capabilites akin tothe Nimrod?
 
Does orwill the E7 have the capabilites akin tothe Nimrod?
Sorry, you’ve lost me entirely now.

Most AEW platforms have a maritime surveillance capability; the E-7’s Northrop-Grumman Multi-mode Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar is no different.

I can’t think what other MR2 capabilities we’d need on E-7.

Regards,
MM
 
Having skipped several pages, apologies if previously mentioned, funding could come from stopping sending money to Swiss Banks via certain never to be developed countries.
 
Magic Mushroom,

You say that: "the E-7 is the ONLY available option which meets requirements now for a wide area C2 asset while producing accurate air, maritime and EW situational awareness."

You say that the Israeli G550 offering "lacks the C2 capacity we require."

Presumably this is down to crew numbers, and presumably you'd make the same criticism of Saab's Globaleye?

Is this the reason why Saab "bizarrely" chose to offer the Erieye ER on an A330 platform? I was astonished that they didn't offer the GlobalEye - which is certified, flying and can be demonstrated, and for which they have a hot production line?

The GlobalEye would seem to be less of a 'risk' than an as-yet untried and unproven Wedgetail upgrade, surely? And would offer a ground surveillance and GMTI capability far above anything the Wedgetail offers.......

Don't you think that properly analysing and evaluating the alternatives would have been sensible, rather than going single-source?
 
Magic Mushroom,

You say that: "the E-7 is the ONLY available option which meets requirements now for a wide area C2 asset while producing accurate air, maritime and EW situational awareness."

You say that the Israeli G550 offering "lacks the C2 capacity we require."

Presumably this is down to crew numbers, and presumably you'd make the same criticism of Saab's Globaleye?

Is this the reason why Saab "bizarrely" chose to offer the Erieye ER on an A330 platform? I was astonished that they didn't offer the GlobalEye - which is certified, flying and can be demonstrated, and for which they have a hot production line?

The GlobalEye would seem to be less of a 'risk' than an as-yet untried and unproven Wedgetail upgrade, surely? And would offer a ground surveillance and GMTI capability far above anything the Wedgetail offers.......

Don't you think that properly analysing and evaluating the alternatives would have been sensible, rather than going single-source?
With respect, your post displays a number of very flawed assumptions.

Chief amongst these is the implication that really rather well qualified RAF AWACS chaps have never flown on a variety of Erieye, Elta or other relevant platforms; or that we’ve not flown on and integrated with such alternatives on operations; or do not have a thorough understanding of exactly what benefits and risks are offered by each of the principal types in this debate.

Therefore, like the P-8 ‘single-source’ decision, I would argue that a detailed analysis and evaluation of the alternatives has taken place. The only thing a formal competition will do is add cost, add technical and operational risk, and result in yet another capability gap in an area we simply cannot afford.

Regards,
MM
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, Saab have confirmed that they want to mount their Erieye on in service Voyagers!

From my perspective as an experienced AWACS operator, Voyager is entirely unsuited to the role, particularly as it lacks an AAR receive capability which is so often employed on ops. However, it's also way larger and heavier than we need, thereby increasing operating costs and reducing deployment options.

While it's suggested that using Voyagers would avoid the cost of procuring a new type, Saab does not mention that the UK would have to bear all development, integration and certification cost and risk for a capability that is demonstrably inferior to other options on the table and for which I cannot envisage anyone else investing.

Despite these facts, I have a horrible feeling of déjà vu from Nimrod AEW3, Nimrod MRA4 and RJ, whereby significant but entirely avoidable cost and delays were added before the decision that the RAF recommended in some cases over a decade previously was adopted.

Finally, the article mentions that Elta are persisting with a G550 based Conformal AEW (CAEW) solution which in my view does not offer sufficient C2 capacity.

Regards,
MM
 
Meanwhile, Saab have confirmed that they want to mount their Erieye on in service Voyagers!

From my perspective as an experienced AWACS operator, Voyager is entirely unsuited to the role, particularly as it lacks an AAR receive capability which is so often employed on ops. However, it's also way larger and heavier than we need, thereby increasing operating costs and reducing deployment options.

While it's suggested that using Voyagers would avoid the cost of procuring a new type, Saab does not mention that the UK would have to bear all development, integration and certification cost and risk for a capability that is demonstrably inferior to other options on the table and for which I cannot envisage anyone else investing.

Despite these facts, I have a horrible feeling of déjà vu from Nimrod AEW3, Nimrod MRA4 and RJ, whereby significant but entirely avoidable cost and delays were added before the decision that the RAF recommended in some cases over a decade previously was adopted.

Finally, the article mentions that Elta are persisting with a G550 based Conformal AEW (CAEW) solution which in my view does not offer sufficient C2 capacity.

Regards,
MM
Pretty sure that Air Tanker would want them at Brize (does Voyager fit into Waddington?) meaning everyone moving from very affordable Lincolnshire to the hyper-expensive Cotswolds. Very retention-positive.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
With far more respect - I know that you have great expertise in this area, and I know that I do not - I don't believe that RAF aircrew have experienced, let alone used the latest Erieye ER standard.

Nor do I believe that any serious effort has been made to leverage any experience that may have been accrued on the Italian G550s nor on earlier Erieyes in service with allies.

I'm not sure that operating alongside rival platforms is necessarily sufficient to support a procurement decision of this kind. The rejection of classified performance data on Erieye ER by the MoD does not fill one with confidence that anyone has made a serious effort to evaluate the capability of alternatives.

Frankly, I do not believe that any 'informal' evaluation or assessment of alternatives has been allowed to get in the way of a kneejerk decision that E-7/Wedgetail is the preferred solution.

There was precious little evaluation/assessment of alternatives prior to the P-8 selection - there seems to have been even less effort this time.

After the uncompeted, single-source awards to Boeing on P-8, AH-64E and Chinook, not only does there need to be a proper consideration of alternatives, there needs to be seen to have been a proper consideration of those alternatives. Politicians, tax-payers and other interested parties need, deserve and are entitled to be reassured that scarce resources are being spent wisely, and something that looks like an uncompeted award does not cut it.

Within the necessary limitations on the basis of security the advantages of Wedgetail and the show-stoppers that rule out the alternatives need to be articulated. "Wedgetail is the only solution, we're not going to explain why or justify that claim, but we know best...." is not adequate.

You made the start of an interesting and potentially persuasive argument in favour of Wedgetail, when you said that the Israeli G550 offering lacked "the C2 capacity we require." Can you elaborate? Why would that be? Would the same apply to Erieye ER on a Global 6000 platform?

To what extent can platform size/crew number requirements be relaxed in the light of increased automation, and by the migration of some functions offboard?

And you have not addressed the point that the UAE did evaluate E-7 (including Wedgetail), E-2D and Erieye, and selected the latter, when all factors apart from operational performance would have driven them towards one of the US solutions. The implications of their decision are pretty obvious.

I suspect that post upgrade, the Wedgetail may gain a clear superiority over the alternatives, but if this is the case then it needs to be made.

And we have to be aware in all of this that the RAF cannot expect to be able to afford the best possible AEW&C platform, but may have to settle for the cheapest alternative that does the job.
 
I'd also suggest that calling the capability of Erieye ER "demonstrably inferior" to that of Wedgetail can only be justified if that superiority can be demonstrated. And no-one has done that.
 
I'd also suggest that calling the capability of Erieye ER "demonstrably inferior" to that of Wedgetail can only be justified if that superiority can be demonstrated. And no-one has done that.
Saab will be happy to pay for a prototype trials aircraft, the certification and negotiate with Airtanker for one of the Voyagers then?

Oh, they won't?

And we have to be aware in all of this that the RAF cannot expect to be able to afford the best possible AEW&C platform, but may have to settle for the cheapest alternative that does the job.
The MOD agrees with you, thats why they are negotiating to buy Wedgetails...
 

Latest Threads

Top